The Next UN Security Council

Israelis are not alone in rolling their eyes at the mere mention of the United Nations. Thanks to blocs of like-minded nations with interlocking leaderships and overlapping interests—the 53-member African Union, the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference, the 118-member "non-aligned" movement—an anti-Western and anti-Zionist tyranny of the majority has long been assured.

Relevant Links

Why Canada Lost OutHaaretz. In a secret bloc vote, Islamic states are thought to have opposed Ottawa’s bid for membership on the Security Council.

Anti-Semitism at the UNUN Watch. Key UN bodies exhibit an irrational obsession with singling out Israel for censure, turning the organization into Ground Zero for the international campaign to delegitimize and demonize the Jewish state.

Joining the JackalsDaniel P. Moynihan, Commentary. In a classic essay, the late New York Senator and former U.S. ambassador to the UN identifies the consequences of American failure to provide moral leadership in the world body. (1981)

That's in the General Assembly. What about the 15-member Security Council, which has both more power and greater legitimacy than other UN bodies? In the Council's early years, when the democracies led by the United States presented a formidable front, most of the vetoes were cast by Soviet Russia. Since the 1980s, the U.S. has had to be the major exerciser of the veto, blocking, among other things, dozens of one-sided anti-Israel resolutions.

And, in the short to medium term, things can only get worse. The Council now has five veto-wielding permanent members: China, France, Russia, Britain, and the U.S. The other ten, enjoying two-year terms, are Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Gabon, Lebanon, and Nigeria plus the newly elected Colombia, Germany, India, Portugal, and South Africa, whose term begins in January 2011.

Of these ten, India, Brazil, and South Africa already exercise global influence, and can be expected to join China and Russia in shilling for Iran in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. The three will likely also form a potent anti-American bloc of their own on the new Council. Last year, for example, only 11 percent of India's votes in the General Assembly lined up with Washington. Sixty-seven percent of South Africa's were on the opposite side. On thirteen issues identified by the State Department as "important," Brazil stood with the U.S. a total of three times. Among the other new non-permanent members, Gabon, a serial abuser of human rights, has made it a point almost never to vote with Washington.

And the Europeans? The U.S. can usually count on France, Britain, and Germany for support—except when it comes to Israel. At that point London and Paris invariably break away to take the Arab side or to abstain. The Germans, for their part, will invariably go along with the EU "consensus," at Israel's expense. Portugal's support of the Arab line on the notorious Goldstone Report probably helped it secure its new Council seat. Canada, by contrast, seems to have lost its bid precisely on account of its principled pro-Israel position.

This, then, is the environment in which the Council will monitor the ongoing Hizballah putsch in Lebanon and Hamas aggression from Gaza and, should it come to pass, consider the issue of a Palestinian unilateral declaration of statehood. South Africa has already declared that "the Security Council has to shoulder its responsibility for ending the Israeli occupation and [for] ensuring [that] the Palestinian people's right to self-determination is met." In a worst-case scenario, the Council could recognize the West Bank and Gaza, demarcated along the 1949 armistice lines, as "Palestine."

Prospects might appear less bleak if Israel held a Security Council seat of its own, which would enable it to participate in decisive closed-door deliberations. But, of the 192-member UN, only the Jewish state is ineligible to serve on the Council—because the Arabs will not allow it to join the regional group that is a steppingstone to Council membership. This state of affairs could become exponentially worse if decades-long efforts to enlarge the Council gain headway and result in a further dilution of Washington's ability to counter the UN's tyrannical majority. Promoting just such "structural reform" is one of India's announced priorities.

What about Jerusalem's ability to rely on Washington to defend its vital interests? Unfairly or not, worries on this score, too, are now being voiced, especially by those concerned lest the U.S. decide not to veto a declaration of unilateral Palestinian statehood. Such concerns serve further to underline the dramatic degree to which the world has changed since the victorious World War II leaders created the architecture of the Security Council. Never has the need been greater for a self-confident United States to dispel the fog of uncertainty and to spearhead the cause of nations sincerely opposed to the scourge of war and genuinely committed to human rights, social progress, and freedom.

Maybe Israel should make peace with its Arab neighbors--the Arab League overture (67 borders) would be a good starting point. Israel could legitimately ask for membership in a regional grouping--part of its acceptance. Then the problem of security council membership would be solved. So would the problem of general hostility to Israel.

Scott McConnell "Maybe Israel should make peace with its Arab neighbors--the Arab League overture (67 borders) would be a good starting point. Israel could legitimately ask for membership in a regional grouping--part of its acceptance. Then the problem of security council membership would be solved. So would the problem of general hostility to Israel."

The time has come to abandon ship. If anyone thinks that the UN and its various agencies have a better chance of being reformed by having the United States and other western powers stay, the record of the last thirty years (at least) proves him wrong!
By staying, the US provides a fig-leaf for UN's fiscal corruption and political imorality.
Every year, the state kleptocracies and failed "developing" pathologies provide ample proof for their lack of interest in living up to the founding principles of of the UN.
Let's stop the sham. Let us wash our hands of this dirty business, close the building on the East River, and bid them all a not-so-fond goodbye.

Elliot, thanks for the link. Jacob I take your point that a cold peace is not attractive. But the sticking point is Palestine. Sadat cared a lot about it; ultimately he couldn't budge Begin, and made a separate peace . I suppose the point is that if Israel, the victor, made a generous peace with the Palestinians, it would be rewarded with acceptance. It does have a lot to offer the region, as a dynamic and advanced state But no one is going to make real peace -- Egypt is the example --while the Palestinians are stateless.

Nathan Shuster: “The time has come to abandon ship. If anyone thinks that the UN and its various agencies have a better chance of being reformed by having the United States and other western powers stay, the record of the last thirty years (at least) proves him wrong!”

I agree Nathan. The UN is actually two (perhaps more) separate organizations. The Security Council and then the General Assembly; this organizing structure is roughly equivalent to the structures in sovereign States where the Governing body is distinct from the social body. Hence when Israel made “peace” with Egypt and Jordan it signed peace treaties with the governing bodies but not with its social sector which is still boycotting the Jewish State.

At the UN this is even more serious because the general assembly with its various organizations dealing with social issues is extremely hostile to Israel. More antisemitic literature comes out of these bodies than from any single place in the world. They have taken over from where the Soviet States and the National Socialist countries before it left off.

Hence the “human rights” organizations get ideological and practical support from the UN bodies which target Israel as almost the only culprit. There is a whole department there dealing with refugees which is to say with Palestinians only. There are no other refugees in the world.

This is due to the Arab and Muslims countries which form and distinct and hostile bloc to one county: Israel.

It’s is scandalous that the US (not to mention other Western countries especially Germany) should endorse such antisemitic hostility towards a member State. Yes, we should leave that international body and take care of security issues on some kind of international Security Council unaffiliated with the UN.

Scott McConnell: Jacob I take your point that a cold peace is not attractive. But the sticking point is Palestine.

I take it that by Palestine you mean the Palestinian refugees. This has always been the excuse. The Arab States have used them as pawns in their war with Israel. Even States such as Egypt and Jordan who made peace have not integrated Palestinians into their society. I believe that there are laws that do not allow the refugees to become citizens of the States they live in.

Israel has been stubborn about the settlements on the West Bank but the PA and other Arab governments have been stubborn about the refugees. The problem could have been solved along ago as was the problem of much larger number of refugees of Jews from Arabs countries, not to mention the refugees in Europe after WW2 or of the India Pakistan conflict: tens of millions of people were settled in new countries.

On this issue as on some others the UN has not been very helpful.

Finally I agree that Israel has “a lot to offer the region, as a dynamic and advanced state,” however I am not sure that many in Arab States see it that way. The conflict is about a lot more than the refugees or settlements.

Mr. McConnell. I would like to call to your attention the following article about Palestinian and Jewish refugees:

"The Expulsion of the Jews from Muslim Countries, 1920-1970: A History of Ongoing Cruelty and Discrimination"
by Shmuel Trigano

"Between 1920 and 1970, 900,000 Jews were expelled from Arab and other Muslim countries. The 1940s were a turning point in this tragedy; of those expelled, 600,000 settled in the new state of Israel, and 300,000 in France and the United States. Today, they and their descendents form the majority of the French Jewish community and a large part of Israel's population."

Scott,
Your boss claims that Treblinka was not a death camp. I was put in mind of Treblinka by this item in yesterday's Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/31/AR2010103102621.html. Of course, if you believe that Treblinka was not a death camp, but rather the subject of some kind of Jewish slander against the Nazis, the it makes perfect sense to believe that the conflict in the Middle East results from Israel's failure to "make peace with its Arab neighbors."